Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:13:24.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Murphy v. Netherland. 116 F.3d 97

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

William J. Aceves
William J. Aceves*
Affiliation:
Of the California Bar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 92 , Issue 1 , January 1998 , pp. 87 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 UST 77, 596 UNTS 261 [hereinafter Vienna Convention]. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention provides that consular officials of a sending state shall be free to communicate with, and have access to, nationals of the sending state. If a foreign national is detained, the Convention requires the competent authorities of the receiving state to inform the individual without delay of his right to communicate with the consular post. It also grants consular officers the right to visit, converse and correspond with a national who is in detention and to arrange for his legal representation.

2 Pub. L. No. 104–132, 110 Stat. 1214.

3 Murphy v. Commonwealth, 246 Va. 136 (1993).

4 Amendment to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Murphy v. Netherland (No. 3:95-CV–856).

5 Murphy v. Netherland, No. 3:95-CV–856, slip op. at 6 (E.D. Va. July 26, 1996).

6 Id. at 7.

7 Id. at 8.

8 Amicus Brief of the United Mexican States, Murphy v. Netherland, 116 F.3d 97 (4th Cir.) (No. 96–14).

9 Id. at 1.

10 Id. at 13.

11 Id. at 3.

12 Id. at 1.

13 Id. at 3.

14 28 U.S.C.A. §2253(c)(2) (West Supp. 1997).

15 116 F.3d 97, 100.

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 Id. at 100–01.

19 Id. at 101.

20 Wildenhus’s Case, 120 U.S. 1 (1886). For more recent examples, see Herrmann v. Meese, 849 F.2d 101 (3d Cir. 1988); Zamora-Trevino v. Barton, 727 F.Supp. 589 (D. Kan. 1989).

21 Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 892–93 (1982).

22 The circuit courts are split on the consequences of the recent changes in the habeas appeals process. See Herman v. Johnson, 98 F.3d 171, 173–74 (5th Cir. 1996); Reyes v. Keane, 90 F.3d 676, 680 (2d Cir. 1996); Lennox v. Evans, 87 F.3d 431, 433–34 (10th Cir. 1996); Williams v. Calderon, 83 F.3d 281, 286 (9th Cir. 1996).

23 See 7 U.S. Dep’t of State, Foreign Affairs Manual §401 (1980).

24 It is undisputed that the Vienna Convention is self-executing. Upon submitting the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent, Deputy Legal Adviser J. Edward Lyerly indicated that the treaty was “entirely self-executive and does not require any implementing or complementing legislation.” S. Exec. Rep . No. 91–9, at 2, 5 (1969) (appendix).

25 Letter from Robert Brooks, Esq., to the Honorable Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State (May 14, 1997).

26 Letter from Michael Matheson, Acting Legal Adviser, Department of State, to Robert Brooks, Esq. (Aug. 20, 1997).

27 Id.

* Editor’s Note: The decision in this case will be reported in a subsequent issue.

28 See People of Saipan v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 502 F.2d 90 (9th Cir. 1974), cert, denied, 420 U.S. 1003 (1975); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (1924).

29 Republic of Paraguay v. Allen, 949 F.Supp. 1269 (E.D. Va. 1996); United Mexican States v. Woods, No. CIV97–1075PHX SMM (D. Ariz. May 19), aff’d, 126 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 1997).

30 Two complaints are pending against the United States before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for failure to provide consular access to foreign nationals pursuant to the Vienna Convention. The complaints were filed against the United States even though state officials were responsible for the actual violations. Individual Complaint to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the United States of America on Behalf of Carlos Santana, Case 11.130, Inter-Am. C.H.R. (Mar. 11, 1993); Individual Complaint to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the United States of America on Behalf of Cesar Fierro, Case 11.331, Inter-Am. C.H.R. (July 21, 1994). See Santana v. State, 714 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Fierro v. State, 706 S.W.2d 310 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).